starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Carrier
Image? I could not find a suitable image/screenshot for this article. Anyone else? -rayluT 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Where is the Carrier in Starcraft 2? Where is the unit in Starcraft 2? Can you show a screenshot of the unit in Starcraft 2? I don't see it anywhere. I see no photos in it or something. The Carrier was originally replaced by the Tempest but was brought back. Tempest screenshots exist but I'm guessing that Blizzard is spending time giving the Carrier a few modifications before showing it.--Hawki 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Does it made changes like carry more than 8 interceptors? Does it have more improvements? The only confirmed improvement is that interceptor production can be set to autocast.--Hawki 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Whats Autocast? Autocast is a setting where a certain function is carried out automatically. In the carrier's case, without autocast, the user must manually create interceptors to replace destroyed ones. With autocast on, the interceptors are created autoamtically.--Hawki 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Is it replaced by Warp Rays?(Assaulthead 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)) Not as a unit, no.--Hawki 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Interceptor? There should be a separate listing for the interceptor. The problem with creating an article for Interceptors is that they're kind of a game unit, yet also not. On one hand, they have stats such as shields, damage, etc. On the other, they have no hotkeys, cooldown, etc. Still, perhaps an article could be created. After all the Broodling and Spider Mine have wormed their way in.--Hawki 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Radiation This being a wiki for a fictional series, it's probably best if articles don't go on tangents of stating the obvious. Sometimes however, we're not sure what the obvious is. The nature of a Carrier seen venting radiation from every broken seam in LC is one of them. I'm not completely sure what this represents exactly. The issue of core containment has presented itself in science fiction (eg. the Reavers in Firefly), the radiation generated by a ship's reactor being contained to keep the passangers safe. On the other hand, it may represent a certain tendency for stealth, storing radiation which makes it harder for enemy vessels to detect the craft (eg. the Normandy from Mass Effect). Obviously a Carrier isn't really going to go for stealth, but given its size, it's going to absorb a lot of shortwave radiation in space and reflect longwave radiation, as per the albedo. The ability to decrease its albedo artificially and therefore give off less radiation would hardly do the ship's enemies any favours. Of course, these are sci-fi examples as opposed to reality and while I understand the rules of albedo well enough, the mechanics of spacecraft don't come to me so readily. Basicaly, is it worth putting this fact in the article and if so, what does it signify?--Hawki 11:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC) From indications in the SC 1 manual, Protoss machines are driven by psi, using Vespene as a catalyst. This causes me to wonder where exactly the radiation is coming from and whether it was being deliberately stored. A low albedo is almost a given; even a Carrier would benefit from being stealthy at long range... but then, that's probably true of every Protoss and Terran ship. I would say leave it out. The Carrier's mechanics are unknowable (the authors might not even know what's going on in there) in part because of their (supposedly) different power source and I wouldn't be surprised if any exploding ship gave off radiation. :) Kimera 757 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Carrier Shields I've heard in a video that the carrier only has an under-belly shield. This means that the shield ONLY protects it from Ground to Air attacks,making it more vulnerable to flying units. Evancartoonist 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC) You're thinking of the Tempest. That was a unit similar to the Carrier, canceled shortly before BlizzCon 2007. Kimera 757 (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Storing Strategy info by Siege-mode Carriers in large groups however, can be incredibly devastating; being able to overcome large numbers of enemy units while standing in range that most ground-to-air defenses can't reach such as rivers and space. This however, can result in many Interceptors being destroyed quickly. To compensate for that, Carriers can focus fire on one target then retreat and attack again once they're Interceptors are in full quantity. Effective counters against Carrier fleets are massed Goliaths with the Charon Boosters upgrade, large numbers of Dragoons with Singular Range upgrade, Lockdown and especially, groups of Scourge. Corsairs and Valkyries are also particularly effective against Interceptors due to the Interceptors' low shields and hitpoints provided with the Corsair's fast and splash damage. Psionic Storms and Plauge can cripple Carrier groups severely if not handled well. In lone or small groups, Scouts and Wraiths are deadly counters. In Carrier vs Carrier battles, it is recommended to focus fire on one Carrier to another against the opponent which can allow the player to win despite being outnumbered or less upgraded or in other cases, both. Kimera 757 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (originally posted by Siege-mode) Strategy to destroy fleet of carriers I wish this site had a list of units to counter the unit. Here is how to counter carriers as a protoss: http://sc2armory.com/forums/topic/12419 Anno1404 17:35, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Alright, next time I play beta I'll collect that info. (I hadn't put it up, just because it seems so obvious to me.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:16, May 30, 2010 (UTC) SC1-like carrier in SC2 map editor Someone had found a variant model for the carrier in SC2 WoL files: http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13180 or http://forums.sc2mapster.com/development/artist-tavern/21988-look-what-i-found/#p2 Giobruno 20:35, May 28, 2011 (UTC) Okay, I uploaded a version of that image and put it on the carrier page, in the development section. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 23:40, May 28, 2011 (UTC) Oh, you read it. Thanks. Ah, is it a development model (as you've written when uploaded) or just a variant? Giobruno 18:56, May 29, 2011 (UTC) As far as I know, it's not a variant. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 23:51, May 29, 2011 (UTC) Tassadar This has probably been discussed before, but why don't we have Tassadar listed here as a commander? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 03:19, March 13, 2012 (UTC) *I don't see any reason not to, considering the Gantrithor is treated as a standard carrier for gameplay purposes, but Hawki seems to think he shouldn't be listed, because the super carrier has its own article. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:35, March 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Well, that's the reason, as far as I see it. That lists should be kept with their own articles. ::It's more based on principle than anything else given the short lists for both articles, but if we make a dividing line in articles, I think the content of those articles should follow suit, to further reinforce that yes, the super carrier has been confirmed as a different class of starship, and we treat it as such. Also, there's arguably some difference between the two in regards to style of command—SotXN shows the standard carrier to have the standard bridge, whereas the last cinematic of The Fall shows Tassadar to be in some kind of core area. Not definate, but if there is a different style of command, I'd rather further reinforce that. ::I can understand the argument for including Tassadar, even if it has a "super carrier " in brackets. But even that I think raises the possibility of misconception. I think regulating lists to their own articles would be more accurate.--Hawki 05:30, March 13, 2012 (UTC) :I disagree. We know the lore, but most site visitors won't know it that much. To most visitors, Tassadar is a carrier commander, and it's weird that he's not listed. By letting people know he's a super carrier commander, it'll encourage people to follow the link too. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:06, March 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Or it'll encourage the misconception, even with the super carrier link—and we'd have to do it twice, because if Tassadar was listed, we'd have to list the Gantrithor as well. It strikes me as making an exception based on nothing but fans' expectations. And while I hate to pull out the "what if?" argument, would we be having the same conversation if there was another super carrier commander, but less well known? Should Pluto be made the ninth planet again because of people's expectations and what not, rather than the evidence? ::Tassadar is well known, of course. But if we want to stop people from editing, we could insert non-wiki text, like what's on the terran page, reminding them of this fact. As famous as Tassadar is, he doesn't warrent an exception that would mean we'd have to make an exception for every other article where this kind of scenario exists.--Hawki 21:24, March 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Edit: One exception I could see being made though is a mention in the notes section, mentioning that Tassadar commands a super carrier, Gantrithor is one, etc. It doesn't infringe on the categorization/inclusion in the lists section, and it points fans in the right direction. It's a case of us addressing the issue rather than altering our MoS to suit the issue. Perhaps not the best comparison in the world, but it's akin to us mentioning Izsha in the notes section of the adjutant page. She definately isn't an adjutant now, but once was under old lore, hence why it's worth a mention IMO.--Hawki 21:29, March 13, 2012 (UTC) :::I don't see a "misconception" or error going on here. A super carrier is a type of carrier just like a Behemoth-class battlecruiser is a type of battlecruiser. In the "battlecruiser" article, we have people who command Behemoths, Minotaur, UED and possibly other classes of battlecruiser in the list section. (In addition, the "super carrier" is pretty new lore, much like the Minotaur. No one would have complained until recently.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 23:48, March 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::Except that all the classes are on the same page. We're dealing with different pages in this case.--Hawki 01:30, March 14, 2012 (UTC) Speculation on Admiral vs Executor So no big deal either way, but here's my reasoning for "Admiral" being a higher rank than Executor. *Urun is or was leader of the Auriga Tribe with a seat on the Hierarchy *Given the Auriga Tribe's central role as masters of the fleet, I figured that he would likely have the highest rank when it came to the Great Fleet *It appears to be a much more uncommon rank than Executor (and frankly one I think was added without them realizing on wait this is just a human rank). Even Selendis the "High Executor" didn't have a seat on the Hierarchy Purely speculation either way mind you, but in terms of chain of command the way it looks Urun has more authority than most Executors just based on his role as a tribe leader. But again, it's not a big deal either way. --Subsourian (talk) 22:54, September 14, 2017 (UTC) :Urun probably outranks Selendis in the general scheme of things, and it doesn't help that the scale of how much an executor commands is pretty vague. That said, we've seen executors be referred to as overall leaders of the Templar Caste, or that aside, have still been seen to be in command of fleets (e.g. Tassadar). I guess if I were to put it in human terms, I could see an admiral being commander of a fleet/naval force, while an executor would be more akin to a commander-in-chief. With the Hierarchy, characters like Urun and Artanis have joint civilian/military roles, while others (e.g. Nahaan) don't. So it could be possible that Urun outranks someone like Selendis in administrative matters while Selendis outranks him in military matters. If so, it wouldn't be the only sci-fi case where this kind of command dichotomy occurs (see Battlestar Galactica). :Like you said, spec, but I feel that given what we know about protoss rank structure, executor strikes me as being a higher rank than admiral, Urun's status as Akilae leader aside.--Hawki (talk) 00:40, September 15, 2017 (UTC)